Luz when giving both sides of the

Luz
Cartagena
Ms.
Scott
AICE
global perspective and research
Why
should the LGBT community have equality?
The
LGBTQ plus community is a community of lesbians, gays, bisexuals,
transgenders, queers, and more, hence LGBTQ plus. The LGBT community
struggles greatly with equality. After all the events of people
fighting for their equality throughout history everyone would just
realize that everybody is human and equal but sadly no. The blacks
got their rights, women got their independence but people are still
struggling with LGBT equality. Despite the fact that same-sex
marriage is legal in most of the U.S. What about in other countries?
Or other LGBT rights, besides marriage, in general? The wave of
acceptance for the LGBT people in the world has been successful in
some areas but there is still a lot that has to be done.

Some
people think LGBT people should not have equality what so ever simply
because it goes against their religious beliefs. Such as the
Americans
United for Separation of Church and State
explains the “War of religious rights war on LGBT Americans”.
The
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
explain that religious people believe LGBT people should not be given
rights because it goes against their beliefs and that by giving LGBT
people their rights they will then force their beliefs to not only
them but everyone in general and take control of what they believe.
They are influenced by their beliefs and this is significant because
people who are strong in religion go based of that religion only.
Then the arguments and claims that are made are one-sided and this
weakens their argument greatly. Although this is a major weakness in
their argument there are also strengths that can be seen. First they
give both points of views with evidence to support and explaining
their point of views while still keeping the focus on the main topic.
This factor greatly impacts the quality of their argument because it
helps show that it is not biased and is simply stating both sides of
the argument. The credibility of the source is increased when giving
both sides of the argument with facts throughout history while
maintaining the main purpose and the arguments position. The
credibility decreases when it becomes one sided, stating its opinion
rather than remaining with the facts that it had just given. Overall,
the credibility was great for their argument except for the fact that
there were a few times where it included opinion after stating a fact
and sounded as if it was completely biased. The credibility of the
source was fairly strong but it would have been stronger if it didn’t
include the parts where it gave its opinion midway of giving factual
evidence or they could have stated their opinion at the end which
then would have strengthened their argument.
LGBT
people had a time in history where they were killed for being LGBT.
Graeme Reid explains in his article Traditional
Values: A Potential Weapon Against LGBT Rights
how in other countries the LGBT people got treated very poorly.
Graeme Reid explained that in Russia LGBT people are being treated
very poorly because of their traditional values. He then goes on to
explain that these values become “powerful
in these times of social uncertainty, political instability, and
economic pressure.”(Reid
3).
The
significance of the argument is that these people did not want
change. They want to continue with the same routine. They have always
been in control over the LGBT people and they don’t want any
modifications because then that power that they have would then be
taken away from them. The source has strengths by being very credible
with the author as someone who has studied, researched and taught
about the issue for years. The author is “a director of an LGBT
rights program, was previously a founding director Gay and Lesbian
Archives of South Africa, a researcher at the Wits Institute, a
lecturer in LGBT studies at Yale, with a master’s degree and a
PhD”(Reid 1). This strongly increases the credibility of the
argument because this demonstrates that the author is an expert on
this topic. In addition the author’s perspective is from Europe and
Central Asia. The source also gives background information in other
links to help support their argument. This impacts the quality of the
argument by making it stronger. Overall the credibility strengths
were strong and impactful, affecting the argument in a positive way
supporting and backing it’s position with very good reasoning,
particularly with the links for background information on the topic.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Omar
G. Incarnation thinks that with this current president, the LGBT
community is at risk. In his article he explains the Global
Backlash Against Gay Rights Throughout History.
Omar explains the backlash to gays throughout history, the reasons
for it and how gay rights have become a political tool. To support
his reasoning he gives facts from throughout history and the “silver
lining” between it all. This is significant because he is not only
just giving facts from throughout history but he also compares the
differences between generations and the possible future on this issue
in general. This is also a strength because it is discussing all the
perspectives of the issue. In addition with the perspective, the
author is giving his argument from a Latin America perspective. The
credibility of the author is reliable to an extent. With his
background in history he becomes credible by understanding the
retaliation against LGBT people throughout time and has the ability
to see the links between the differences of the time periods. The
neutrality of the writer leans towards the negative effects of LGBT
by providing the possible future of the issue with LGBT people. The
impact of credibility provides enough evidence that can be relied on,
especially on a topic that can be opinionated by anyone. Overall,
the credibility strengths were strong,
providing beneficial reasoning about the silver lining between the
time periods. It can be further strengthened if the reasoning had
credible sources used, with an abundance of well supported
information.

Transgenders are not
able to serve their country because the military “needs to focus
on victory and not the burden of medical costs”(Strangio 4).
Chase Strangio explains the series of tweets that Trump posted about
the new transgender military ban and how the people of ACLU are
fighting to get equal rights with allowing transgender people able to
serve in the military. Chase supports this by using quotes from the
court case on the transgender military ban. This article is
significant because the source explains how Trump’s ban on
transgender people was “contradicted by the studies, conclusions
and judgment of the military itself”(Strangio. The strengths of
the argument are weak on the basis that it raises concern for the
continued oppression and dehumanization of transgender individuals.
Issues such as homophobia and violence are very serious, particularly
on how there is a misconception that transgenders are not normal. The
weakness of the argument does not include recent information over the
ban placements although it can be argued to contradict that people
who are of changing gender do not fit the social standards. However,
being a transgender does not mean they are limited in capabilities.
The credibility of the argument is stronger when referring to sources
such as government and applying information, nonetheless the article
does not necessarily hold humanitarian views. Therefore the
dehumanization of a certain group of people can be used to present
the opposing side. Despite efforts to justify the transgender ban,
 there are no justifications reasonable enough to defend their
position. The credibility of the writer is drastically unreliable for
these reasons. The credibility impact on the argument obtains a
reasonable source with invalid points. Such points can be accounted
for the denial of transgenders continually joining the army. As well
as the positivity that the article was trying to persuade with, it
was negative in the sense that it oppresses transgenders. The
credibility factors make the source’s argument stronger, by
providing beneficial reasoning about the effects of the transgender
military ban. It can be furthered strengthened if the reasoning had
credible sources used, with an abundance of substantial information.
The
LGBT community should be equal because everyone is human. The way
some people discriminate LGBT people based on who they are attracted
to or their gender is the same thing as whites being racist to blacks
simply because of their color or women being seen as lower than men
just because they’re women. It shouldn’t matter to people who
others love or if they want to change their gender because it doesn’t
have an actual effect them physically or personally. The reason of
belief on their end contradicts itself because not everyone believes
their religion and their forcing their religion on other people just
by using that reason. The source that swayed me the most was Omar G.
Incarnation’s article The
Global Backlash Against Gay Rights Throughout History because
his argument was the most logical. Also it is because I am an LGBT
person myself and I have LGBT friends but this does not make me
biased; I was raised in a very religious household and understand the
other side of the argument. With observations that I have made, most
people with religious beliefs are not willing to understand the
opposition of their argument because they are set on this idea that
they are right and will always be right. I myself don’t completely
disagree with all of my family’s religion for example, but unlike
them I think people should still have their freedom because I know
that not everyone believes in what I do and I might not believe what
they do but we’re still human. More investigation needs to be done
and more resources are needed to explore this issue any further
because this is an issue that people have been fighting to get
equality for years which means that there needs to be justice on this
issue if its an ongoing problem. Changes need to be made in the way
the issue was studied and discussed. The potential impact of a future
study or research is that it will bring changes to this world rather
than just studying it and not actually doing anything about. Doing
research is to make desired results, not to procrastinate with the
knowledge.